1.

0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this laboratory experiment is to find the relationship between the
deflection (y) at the centre of a simply supported beam and the span, width.
1. To measure deflections in a simply supported steel, wood and carbon fibre beam
2. To use measured deflections and theory to evaluate the Young’s modulus of the
materials
2.0 INTRODUCTION

A beam must possess sufficient stiffness so that excessive deflections do not have an
adverse effect on adjacent structural members. In many cases, maximum allowable
deflections are specified by Code of Practice in terms of the dimensions of the beam,
particularly the span. The actual deflections of a beam must be limited to the elastic range of
the beam, otherwise permanent distortion result. Thus in determining the deflections of beam
under load, elastic theory is used.

In this experiment double integration method is used to give the complete deflected shape
of the beam.

3.0 THEORY

Beam with point load at mid span

4.0 APPARATUS

Figure 1: Apparatus for Span Deflection Experiment (Double Integration Method)

Figure 2: Digital Dial Test Indicator Figure 3: Hanger and Masses

Figure 4: Specimen Beam (choose either aluminium, Brass or steel)

5.0 PROCEDURE

1. The moveable knife – edge supports had been positioned so that they are 400mm.
2. The chosen beam had to place on the support.
3. The hanger and the digital dial test indicator had placed at mid span. The Digital
Reading had been zero.
4. Incremental load had been applied and the deflection recorded for each increment in
the table below.
5. The above step repeated using span of 300 mm and 400mm.

6.0 RESULT
 Material = (Carbon Fibre)

Experiment 1: Span = 500mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection Theoretical % Different

(experimental) Ymax
1 0.981 -1.22 -0.174 512.76
2 1.962 -2.33 -0.348 485.43
3 2.943 -3.30 -0.522 452.76
4 3.924 -4.20 -0.616 427.64
5 4.905 -5.14 -0.870 416.58

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 2: Span = 400mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.34
2 1.962 -0.96
3 2.943 -1.58
4 3.924 -2.15
5 4.905 -2.73

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 3: Span = 300mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.38
2 1.962 -0.59
3 2.943 -0.81
4 3.924 -1.03
5 4.905 -1.25

 Use any from 100g to 500g

 Material = (Wood)

Experiment 1: Span = 500mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection Theoretical % Different

(experimental) Ymax
1 0.981 -0.08 -0.174 97.03
2 1.962 -0.67 -0.348 87.56
3 2.943 -1.09 -0.522 86.51
4 3.924 -1.52 -0.616 85.89
5 4.905 -1.93 -0.870 85.67

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 2: Span = 400mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.51
2 1.962 -0.98
3 2.943 -1.38
4 3.924 -1.82
5 4.905 -2.33

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 3: Span = 300mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.09
2 1.962 -0.16
3 2.943 -0.25
4 3.924 -0.32
5 4.905 -0.40

 Use any from 100g to 500g

 Material = (Steel Bar)

Experiment 1: Span = 500mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection Theoretical % Different

(experimental) Ymax
1 0.981 -0.32 -0.174 83.91
2 1.962 -0.60 -0.348 72.41
3 2.943 -0.87 -0.522 66.67
4 3.924 -1.15 -0.616 65.23
5 4.905 -1.43 -0.870 64.37

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 2: Span = 400mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.16
2 1.962 -0.30
3 2.943 -0.45
4 3.924 -0.60
5 4.905 -0.74

 Use any from 100g to 500g

Experiment 3: Span = 300mm

No. Mass* (N) Deflection

(experimental)
1 0.981 -0.08
2 1.962 -0.15
3 2.943 -0.23
4 3.924 -0.29
5 4.905 -0.35

 Use any from 100g to 500g

7.0 ANALYSIS

Specimen Beam: Steel Bar, Wood, Carbon Fibre

Young’s Modulus, E steel: 207 GPa
E Carbon Fibre: 181 GPa
E Wood: 12.50 GPa
I: bd3/12
: (19.81 x 10^-3) (3.54 x 10^-3) ^-3 / 12
: 7.09 x 10^-11
EI Steel: (207 x 10^9) (7.09 x 10^-11)
: 14.677 Pa / Nm2
: 14.677 x 106 𝑁𝑚𝑚2
EI Carbon Fibre: (181 x 10^9) (7.09 x 10^-11)
: 12.833 x 106 𝑁𝑚𝑚2
EI Wood: (12.50 x 10^9) (7.09 x 10^-11)
: 0.866 x 106 𝑁𝑚𝑚2
8.0 DISCUSSION

Comment on the different between the theoretical and experimental result.

From experimental 1,2 and 3 with different types of material for span beams with
500mm span we obtain the different between the theoretical and experimental result for
carbon fibre that is experiment 1 are (0.981N= 512.76%) (1.962N=485.43%) and (2.943N =
452.76%). Then, for experiment 2 with the Wood span beam we obtain for (0.981N =
97.03%) (1.962N = 87.56%) and (2.942N = 86.51%).Finally, for experiment 3 with the steel
bar span beam we obtain for (0.981N=83.91%) (1.962N = 72.41%) and (2.943N = 66.67%).

Based on the different result, it shows that the experiment 1 to experiment 3 all have a
non-accurate result and it also has big different in theoretical and experimental result, one of
the problem might be because we are not using the hangar as the tools to place the load on the
steel but we are using the S – steel tools, so the load might move a bit either to left or right
where the load is not in steady or consistent state. Other than that, it may be because of
environmental interfere that cause the load to move and maybe because of due to parallax
error during to set the span length in accurate point.
9.0 CONCLUSION

We can conclude that the experimental value and the theoretical value are not exactly
the same. We can see that there are small and big difference between the values. It is
because that the span deflection not success or not showing the great result. From the
result, the values of theoretical are negative. The values are affected by the tension
condition and surrounding interference. The higher the values of Young's modulus the
better. Higher value means more stiffness.

Throughout the duration of this lab, the students were exposed to stress, strain,
Young’s modulus, moment of inertia, force, and deflection. After making use of these
concepts during lab, a conclusion was drawn about the strongest and weakest beams
tested. The strongest beam was found to be the steel beam. The weakest was found to be
the carbon fibre. This was verified when the force vs. deflection for all beams were
calculated.

During the lab, not many difficulties were faced. However, one difficulty was
making sure that the minimum and maximum values were accurate because if the weight
was not adjusted properly, then the dial indicator would not produce the same reading.
Another difficulty that was faced was measuring the width and thickness of each beam.
The Vernier calliper is extremely precise and at times it was a little bit difficult to get the
exact reading. Other than those two, there were no other difficulties experienced during
the lab.